The Dynamics of Entrapment

Crime, Criminal Injustice, Homeland Security, IMMIGRATION, Intelligence, Law, Terrorism

Singing from the same hymn-sheet, the Left and the Right did a little jig today: The brilliant FBI had gone and caught us one of dem Arab terrorists, looking to kill us because of our freedoms.

Or did it really?

Before you rejoice with the FBI and the unquestioning Candy Crowley (CNN) and Megyn Kelly (FoxNews), do read on. As I’ve already documented, “the FBI often entraps pliable dolts (to better serve their political masters). The seven Miami-based men who were accused of ‘concocting a plot to blow up Chicago’s Sears Tower’ come to mind. They were illiterate and probably borderline retarded.”

Such Psyops (psychological operations) had ensnared the simpletons who were going to explode the Bronx synagogue, and the “terror ring” tembels who were convinced (by FBI) that shooting a Stinger missile at a fighter plane was in the cards for them.

If a “U.S. agents – running two separate, world-wide sting operations worthy of a James Bond movie – received thousands of dollars in down payments,” then, voila, we have a terror plot, never mind that the agents set the sting up; seeking out fools to entrap.

Most recently, the brilliant and brave FBI and DEA entrapped Mansour Arbabsiar and Ali Gholam Shakuri. I read the court complaint. It had “more twists than a serpent’s tail, but none led conclusively to Teheran, unless Teheran is code for ‘Surveillance State USA.'” “That indictment was the kind of cloak-and-dagger that belongs in an episode of ‘The Unit,’ not in the courts of a civilized country.”

What amazes me repeatedly about American journos is that not one—giggly-girl, “keeping-them-honest” Anderson Cooper; are you listening?—has probed the legality of setting swarthy simpletons up and then nabbing them in a so-called terrorism sting.

You just know that each of these FBI targets is a low-IQ, poor sod, ripe for the taking, who happens to be too stupid to even know that this is how the FBI rolls. You can be sure that “legit” terrorists would never be ensnared this way.

“The federal criminal complaint against the” latest “suspect identifies him as Amine El Khalifi, a 29-year-old Moroccan citizen who has been living in the United States illegally since 1999 after his visa expired. He was nabbed following a lengthy investigation by the FBI, initiated after he allegedly expressed interest in conducting an attack.” (FoxNews)

It would be cheaper for the taxpayer, who’d be spared paying for the FBI’s sadistic games, to deport illegal aliens than set them up.

Oh Contradictory Canada!

Canada, Economy, Free Speech, Homeland Security, Law, Liberty, Regulation

“Canada’s balance sheet is healthier than those of other developed nations,” reports the Wall Street Journal. “Canada’s federal deficit is just 1.9% of gross domestic product,” and Finance Minister Jim Flaherty “aims to reduce that to zero by 2016 with new cuts in his annual budget, expected next month.”

Unlike the states stateside, the Canadian provinces are aiming to balance their books, as they ought to. “Ontario, the largest province in terms of population, released an independent report recommending 362 spending cuts, from increased school class sizes to fewer hospitals, to rein in a 16 billion Canadian dollar (US$16 billion) budget deficit and balance its books in five years.”

Alas, a show of responsibility on the part of some Canadian leaders has met with opprobrium from mooching members of the public. “Critics of Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative Party have accused the government of using austerity to push through one of its political goals: smaller government.”

OMIGOD. What could be worse than shrinking the state , which invariably grows society? Those arguing against cutting the “oink sector,” so as to ensure these strong fundamentals persist defer to Keynesian political economy, of course. The need for the state to stimulate the delirium of demand, rather than allow the necessary slowdown in consumption that is associated with liquidation of bad investments and increased savings.

…austerity threatens jobs and saps demand at home. It also shuts down a source of global demand that the world needs more than ever amid slower-than-expected growth almost everywhere else in the developed world.

Ludwig von Mises, who wrote the “Theory of Money and Credit” (1912) well in advance of Keynes’ “General Theory,” showed that the Keynesian cure—inflating the money supply in order to stimulate demand—causes depressions.

Writes Peter Schiff: “Stimulus merely numbs the pain of economic contraction, as the underlying trauma gets worse. Austerity might slow an economy down, but at least the wounds are able to heal. America has chosen the former and Europe the latter, albeit not quite as large a dose as needed. The fact that in the short-run Europe is suffering more than the US does not vindicate Washington’s approach. On the contrary, this is exactly what is to be expected.”

Economic good news aside, Canada, on the other hand, boasts draconian anti-free speech laws. One of the most oppressive instruments in the Canadian state is the Human Rights apparatus. “The Human Rights Commission, a Kangaroo court, operates outside the Canadian courts, affording its victims none of the defenses or due process the courts afford. For example, mens rea, or criminal intention: the absence of the intent to harm is no defense in this ‘court.’ Neither is truth.”

To top that, as RT reports, “Lawmakers in the Great White North are debating a bill that will pulverize what’s left of online privacy for Canucks.”

The Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act (Bill C-51) is legislation that isn’t new to Canadian Parliament, but after a series of additions and other changes, lawmakers there are expected to begin discussion on it this week. If passed, law enforcement there will be able to monitor all Internet and telephone activity from anyone, anywhere in the country, without having to obtain a warrant.

UPDATED: Mindless Medic Gives Patient Marching Orders

Healthcare, Individualism Vs. Collectivism, Socialism

I would not have believed Karen De Coster’s blog post and LRC.COM article, “Medical Establishment Firing Patients Who Refuse Big Pharma-Big Government Vaccines,” if … it had not happened to me last year—around the same time! Except that the two certified letters that arrived in short succession from my frantic, histrionic (female) physician remain unopened. After we had a tiff during a visit in December or November, I think it was, I decided to leave the woman forthwith. That’s why I did not bother to open her letters. But the description Karen gives of the certified mail, two items, in my case, matches the things I queued up for at the horrible post office.

Unfortunately, I have not been as firm as Karen about refusing mammograms. But I certainly have never and will never have the flu shot. When I politely declined the shot at the new practice, the assistant seemed unfazed. Of course, I was a lot more timid about it. Just said, “No need. I seldom get sick.”

There’s strength in numbers. De Koster has empowered patients. I will eventually get around to opening the certified letters of dismissal (I presume) from my doctor and deal with the issue in a more public manner. The “exchange” we had in her office bears repeating. At the time, I did, of course, send a devastating letter pinpointing this medic’s substandard care, and asking her to quit harassing me with unsolicited mail (which I do not open) and causing iatrogenic illness.

UPDATE (Feb. 12): Further reading: “Robb Wolf on Things Paleo.” And “South African Professor Tim Noakes, an influential sports performance scientist, author, and long-time carb loader, has gone primal.”

UCT (Sean’s Alma Mater) scientist says, “Sorry, but carbo is really a no-no.”

Justice Ginsburg And You: 2 Peas In A Pod?

Classical Liberalism, Constitution, Founding Fathers, Individual Rights

The following is excerpted from my latest column, “Justice Ginsburg And You: 2 Peas In A Pod?”:

“I would not look to the US constitution,” said US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in an interview with Al-Hayat TV. “If I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012, I might look at the constitution of South Africa, Canada … and the European Convention on Human Rights.”

Al-Hayat’s correspondent had solicited Ginsburg’s advice on drafting the Egyptian constitution.

Go easy on Ginsburg; she’s a lot like you. She shares a disdain for America’s founding document with millions, maybe even a majority, of her countrymen. The US Constitution is flouted daily by the people’s representatives, and has been amended and reinterpreted to the point of no return.

The governing documents that excite Bader Ginsburg’s admiration are documents of positive rights. The American Constitution is by-and-large a charter of negative liberties, as the president once described it derisively.

A positive right is state-manufactured, usually at the behest of political majorities. Rights to a job, water, clothes, food, education and medical care are examples. Some of the European covenants canvassed by Bader consider “freely chosen” desirable work as a human right. Ditto adequate “rest and leisure.”

Once these needs are recognized as rights, they become state-enforceable, legal claims against other, less-valued members of society (“the rich”). Someone who hasn’t had a vacation, or has not reached his career apogee, gets to collect on such claims.

In the case of natural rights—the only founding truths the nation’s fathers could have conceived of, given their classical liberal philosophical framework—the duty is merely a mitts-off duty. My right to life means you must not murder me. My right to liberty means you dare not enslave me. My right to property means you can’t take what’s mine—not 35 percent of it, or 15 percent. Nada. And you have no right to stop me from taking the necessary acquisitive action for my survival, so long as I, in turn, respect the same restrictions.

As an instantiation of a constitutional democracy governed in accordance with state-minted rights, take the new South Africa, where almost everyone knows someone who has been raped, robbed, hijacked, murdered, or all of the above, in violation of natural law.

Not that you’d know it, but the poor South Africans enjoy a constitutional right to live free of all forms of violence, “public” or “private” in origin. Section 12 of their progressive constitution guarantees the “Freedom and Security of the Person.” Clearly “progressive” doesn’t necessarily spell progress, as nowhere does this wordy but worthless document state whether South Africans may actually defend this most precious of rights.

If anything, self-defense can be an offense in progressive South Africa. …

Knowing what you now know about the South African Constitution—what is it do you suppose Ginsburg dislikes about one of the greatest documents of political philosophy?

From all accounts, it is that the US Constitution is principally a charter of negative liberties. …”

Read the complete column, “Justice Ginsburg And You: 2 Peas In A Pod?”

Support this writer’s work by clicking to “Recommend,” “Tweet” and “Share” the “Paleolibertarian Column” on RT and “Return To Reason” on WND.